In what could be a major blow to Android, Google's mobile operating system, a San Francisco jury issued a verdict today that the company broke copyright laws when it used Java APIs to design the system. The ruling is a partial victory for Oracle, which accused Google of violating copyright law.

But the jury couldn't reach agreement on a second issue—whether Google had a valid "fair use" defense when it used the APIs. Google has asked for a mistrial based on the incomplete verdict, and that issue will be briefed later this week.

The results aren't clear going forward. Both sides are going to write briefs arguing how to proceed from here, with Google likely arguing the verdict needs to be thrown out, while Oracle somehow tries to hang on to its win on question 1A, the fundamental question about whether Google infringed copyright.

No one knows the jury's internal deliberations, so it's speculative to guess at what led to the partial verdict. But one reason could be the unusual construction of this trial. Judge William Alsup, who is overseeing the case, ruled that the case would be decided by a jury of 12, which is large for a civil case and increases the possibility of having one or more "holdout" jurors. Alsup also ruled that the jury must decide unanimously, a requirement for criminal cases that's not always imposed on civil juries.

On two other questions—whether Google violated copyrights on certain software documentation, and a question about whether Google's acknowledged copying of a few short software functions also broke copyright laws—the jury found mostly in Google's favor. There was no infringement found regarding the documentation, but the jury did find that one nine-line function that Google acknowledged copying was infringing. (If that's all that holds up, though, there won't be much in way of damages available to Oracle.)

What is clear is that the jury believes that Google did copy something important. Even though Google's code in Android was original or borrowed from other open source code, the jury found that the Android APIs copied the "structure, sequence, and organization" of Java APIs.

Google spokesman Jim Prosser responded to the verdict quickly, saying via e-mail: "We appreciate the jury's efforts, and know that fair use and infringement are two sides of the same coin. The core issue is whether the APIs here are copyrightable, and that's for the court to decide. We expect to prevail on this issue and Oracle's other claims."

If the verdict stands, the end result is that Java may not be as open source as it was thought to be. Oracle may be able to essentially take Java out of the public domain, at least as far as its use in cell phones.

Oracle may have a leg up in the patent phase. It's already managed to sway these 12 jurors on the key question, and the same panel is now considering Oracle's allegations that Google has infringed two Java-related patents.

This is far from being a loss for Google at this point, however. Even if it doesn't manage to get Judge Alsup to declare a mistrial, the search giant has other ways it could avoid a big copyright loss.

First of all, Alsup let the jury trial move forward without making a key ruling: whether APIs are copyrightable at all. Instead, he let the evidence develop throughout the trial, and told the jury to assume that APIs can be copyrighted. But at the end of the trial, Alsup gave the lawyers a short talk indicating that he may see the API issue Google's way, comparing APIs to an idea for writing a guide book from San Francisco to Monterey.

If the anti-Android verdict stands

If the verdict that Android infringed copyrights stands, it could put programmers in a difficult situation. Java is an open source language, but now it's not clear how free programmers are to use it, since Oracle has said that anyone following the Java APIs—which are basically sets of instructions about how to use Java—needs a license.

The effects beyond Android and Java are unclear. At this point, Android is the only "non-standard" implementation of Java. However, it could have a chilling effect, and if Oracle is seen as a major IP enforcer when it comes to Java, that could backfire.

"Other people will be deterred from using Java as the basis for some non-standard thing in the future," said Tyler Ochoa, a professor of copyright law at Santa Clara University. "It could be the case that Oracle wins the battle and loses the war."

For all that, Oracle won today on the key question. The company's long battle to get money out of Google and Android is looking like it stands a much better chance today. While Oracle is a large company with many operations and hardly a "patent troll," in a way, it may be able to execute a similar strategy—getting a cut of the lucrative smartphone market using intellectual property laws, even though it doesn't compete in that market. What kind of money Oracle will be able to collect will be determined in a third "damages phase" of the trial. That phase will start after the "patent phase," which begins today and may only last one week.

Overall, the situation bodes poorly for Google's legal defense of Android, which will be ongoing. Oracle's lawsuit was the most aggressive and well-funded of many intellectual property attacks against Android. But Google will continue to be involved in Android-related patent litigation, as the handset companies that make Android phones, like Samsung and HTC, are being sued by Microsoft and Apple in a kind of "proxy war" against Android.

Despite these legal attacks, Android is experiencing explosive growth; a Google executive testified last week that 750,000 Android phones are being activated each day in 2012. That's up from 160,000 per day in 2010.

What happens next

After the partial copyright verdict was read, Judge Alsup launched right into the patent phase without even giving a break. Right now, the jury is watching a video about patents and patent lawsuits produced by the Federal Judicial Center, which is commonly shown to patent juries. Court will probably adjourn after opening statements today, and witnesses will begin testifying tomorrow, possibly including a repeat show by Jonathan Schwartz, the ex-Sun CEO. The patent phase is expected to be concluded in as little as one week.

Jury does not decide if Google broke copyright law... that is up to the judge.

The judge told the jury they were to make their ruling with the understanding that APIs are copyright protected. Should the verdict be YES on the copyright portion then the judge has to decide if the APIs are actually protected by copyright...

I wonder if any of the jury is actually tech-savvy? This is an absolute disaster. However I can't decide what's better for deciding the future of copyright law: an incompetent jury, or an incompetent legislature. I guess given those two options as a choice, I'd have to go with the jury. Damn.

I'm not exactly surprised considering the judge instructed the jury to rule on these questions based on the assumption that API's can be copyrighted. I'm interested to see how the split verdict on fair use plays out.

I'm also interested to see if this brings up the larger discussion on whether or not API's can by copyrighted in the US.

I wonder if any of the jury is actually tech-savvy? This is an absolute disaster. However I can't decide what's better for deciding the future of copyright law: an incompetent jury, or an incompetent legislature. I guess given those two options as a choice, I'd have to go with the jury. Damn.

Actually, it's not the jury's fault. The Judge said "assume API are copyrightable". It's hard to say Google didn't infringe when you assume that.

But, Judge Alsup will still decide on that later. So this ruling may be moot in the end.

I wonder if any of the jury is actually tech-savvy? This is an absolute disaster. However I can't decide what's better for deciding the future of copyright law: an incompetent jury, or an incompetent legislature. I guess given those two options as a choice, I'd have to go with the jury. Damn.

Actually, it's not the jury's fault. The Judge said "assume API are copyrightable". It's hard to say Google didn't infringe when you assume that.

But, Judge Alsup will still decide on that later. So this ruling may be moot in the end.

It was the only way for the jury to be able to make a decision on this issue - as they [jury] can not decide if something is law or not... but only if one is guilty of breaking said law. Because there is no precedent for copyright protection for APIs the judge will make the final decision...

Anyone interested in a more accurate and thorough review of the verdict should head over to Groklaw. This article and headline from Ars is thoroughly disappointing - I've come to expect better journalism from Ars and am disappointed this time.

Anyone interested in a more accurate and thorough review of the verdict should head over to Groklaw. This article and headline from Ars is thoroughly disappointing - I've come to expect better journalism from Ars and am disappointed this time.

I'm not sure what kind of journalistic excellence Ars has produced in the past that would make this a disappointment. I find their science articles fairly enlightening, but their technology reviews and articles are generally full of holes and misinformation.

Unless I'm mistaken the judge could negate this finding by ruling that APIs are not copyrightable, which he has yet to decide upon.

siliconaddict wrote:

*shrugs* I'm an android fan, but frankly....if they did wrong. Bring the pain.

And if Google did wrong then anyone who has ever implemented an API without explicitly asking and receiving permission beforehand will feel the pain.

This case is not about any old API, or what some people choose to call an API. It is only about the 37 Java APIs.

That's a rather shortsighted statement. The rule of law is based on precedent. If a precedent is set that ANY API is copyrightable, then ALL APIs are copyrightable. Your statement equates to "Well, that judgement says knowingly putting rat poison in Jane Doe's coffee is murder, it doesn't apply to knowingly putting rat poison in her orange juice, or in someone else's coffee.".

If Oracle can copyright an API and SSO of APIs, then every API and SSO of APIs is ALREADY copyrighted. As soon as they're fixed in a medium (such as a documentation booklet or a computer programming library). That's how copyright works, as soon as it's done, it's copyrighted.

Just like this comment, it's actually copyrighted as soon as I press 'leave your reply' button and fix it in an HTML medium.

Also, Note that the jury pretty much had to find Google guilty on 1A. The judge told them to when he said 'assume that SSO of APIs is copyrightable'. So this is a huge gigantic total non surprise to anyone who's been following the case. So until the judge actually rules that SSO of APIs is copyrightable, Google hasn't lost anything.

From what I could gather, Google was found to infringe the copyright of NINE lines of code. And let's not forget that the judge told the jury to consider API copyrightable.

Datahead wrote:

Anyone interested in a more accurate and thorough review of the verdict should head over to Groklaw. This article and headline from Ars is thoroughly disappointing - I've come to expect better journalism from Ars and am disappointed this time.

Yeah, it's a shame. I love Ars but they sure enjoy some Google bashing as of late.

The article is wrong. The jury did not rule that "Google violated copyright law". Jury said Google violated SSO, but if SSO is protected by copyright law is still an open question for the judge (not decided yet).

Anyone interested in a more accurate and thorough review of the verdict should head over to Groklaw. This article and headline from Ars is thoroughly disappointing - I've come to expect better journalism from Ars and am disappointed this time.

We're working on a more in-depth story that will be posted shortly, but we wanted to get the news out quickly.

Unless I'm mistaken the judge could negate this finding by ruling that APIs are not copyrightable, which he has yet to decide upon.

siliconaddict wrote:

*shrugs* I'm an android fan, but frankly....if they did wrong. Bring the pain.

And if Google did wrong then anyone who has ever implemented an API without explicitly asking and receiving permission beforehand will feel the pain.

This case is not about any old API, or what some people choose to call an API. It is only about the 37 Java APIs.

That's a rather shortsighted statement. The rule of law is based on precedent. If a precedent is set that ANY API is copyrightable, then ALL APIs are copyrightable. Your statement equates to "Well, that judgement says knowingly putting rat poison in Jane Doe's coffee is murder, it doesn't apply to knowingly putting rat poison in her orange juice, or in someone else's coffee.".

If Oracle can copyright an API and SSO of APIs, then every API and SSO of APIs is ALREADY copyrighted. As soon as they're fixed in a medium (such as a documentation booklet or a computer programming library). That's how copyright works, as soon as it's done, it's copyrighted.

Just like this comment, it's actually copyrighted as soon as I press 'leave your reply' button and fix it in an HTML medium.

Except posting things on ars:

you irrevocably grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide right and license to copy, reproduce, modify, edit, crop, alter, revise, adapt, translate, enhance, reformat, remix, rearrange, resize, create derivative works of, move, remove, delete, erase, reverse-engineer, store, cache, aggregate, publish, post, display, distribute, broadcast, perform, transmit, rent, sell, share, sublicense, syndicate, or otherwise provide to others, use, or change all such Content and communications, in any medium (now in existence or hereinafter developed) and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so. Among other things, this means that we may use any ideas, suggestions, developments, and/or inventions that you post, upload, transmit, send or otherwise make available in any manner as we see fit without any compensation or attribution to you. In any event, you should make copies of or otherwise back-up any and all Content, personal data or communications you post, upload, transmit, send or otherwise make available on or through the Service that you may wish to retain.

Unless I'm mistaken the judge could negate this finding by ruling that APIs are not copyrightable, which he has yet to decide upon.

siliconaddict wrote:

*shrugs* I'm an android fan, but frankly....if they did wrong. Bring the pain.

And if Google did wrong then anyone who has ever implemented an API without explicitly asking and receiving permission beforehand will feel the pain.

This case is not about any old API, or what some people choose to call an API. It is only about the 37 Java APIs.

That's a rather shortsighted statement. The rule of law is based on precedent. If a precedent is set that ANY API is copyrightable, then ALL APIs are copyrightable. Your statement equates to "Well, that judgement says knowingly putting rat poison in Jane Doe's coffee is murder, it doesn't apply to knowingly putting rat poison in her orange juice, or in someone else's coffee.".

If Oracle can copyright an API and SSO of APIs, then every API and SSO of APIs is ALREADY copyrighted. As soon as they're fixed in a medium (such as a documentation booklet or a computer programming library). That's how copyright works, as soon as it's done, it's copyrighted.

Just like this comment, it's actually copyrighted as soon as I press 'leave your reply' button and fix it in an HTML medium.

Except posting things on ars:

you irrevocably grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide right and license to copy, reproduce, modify, edit, crop, alter, revise, adapt, translate, enhance, reformat, remix, rearrange, resize, create derivative works of, move, remove, delete, erase, reverse-engineer, store, cache, aggregate, publish, post, display, distribute, broadcast, perform, transmit, rent, sell, share, sublicense, syndicate, or otherwise provide to others, use, or change all such Content and communications, in any medium (now in existence or hereinafter developed) and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so. Among other things, this means that we may use any ideas, suggestions, developments, and/or inventions that you post, upload, transmit, send or otherwise make available in any manner as we see fit without any compensation or attribution to you. In any event, you should make copies of or otherwise back-up any and all Content, personal data or communications you post, upload, transmit, send or otherwise make available on or through the Service that you may wish to retain.

What a crappy outcome for Oracle; They got a jury to agree that nine lines of code were lifted from Oracle (something Google freely admitted). It will be curious if Oracle even gets the attorney fees paid for this.

That's a rather shortsighted statement. The rule of law is based on precedent. If a precedent is set that ANY API is copyrightable, then ALL APIs are copyrightable. Your statement equates to "Well, that judgement says knowingly putting rat poison in Jane Doe's coffee is murder, it doesn't apply to knowingly putting rat poison in her orange juice, or in someone else's coffee.".

If Oracle can copyright an API and SSO of APIs, then every API and SSO of APIs is ALREADY copyrighted. As soon as they're fixed in a medium (such as a documentation booklet or a computer programming library). That's how copyright works, as soon as it's done, it's copyrighted.

Nonsense. APIs are already copyrighted FOR SOURCE AND OBJECT CODE, APIs have also been found to have copyrightable SSOs (see Johnson Controls). The SSO of any API is going to have to be complex enough to be considered original expression. The copyrightability of the SSO for ANY API will be decided on a case by case basis (just like it is now), until it's thrown out altogether by the SC or some bright line test is devised and adopted by the courts.

This case is not about any old API, or what some people choose to call an API. It is only about the 37 Java APIs.

That is the subject matter at hand, yes. However there is this thing called precedent that, should a company get a bug up their ass, they can leverage to support a court case.

Do you believe this to not be the case?

That has been the case since 1989 and Johnson Controls. The sky didn't fall then and won't fall now if Alsup rules similarly.

The thing is, ruddy, you'd never think the sky was falling no matter how many times you were hit on the head. I mean look at you here in this very thread trying to argue that precedent isn't that important so we should be perfectly fine with an Oracle victory no matter what that would imply.

Anyone interested in a more accurate and thorough review of the verdict should head over to Groklaw. This article and headline from Ars is thoroughly disappointing - I've come to expect better journalism from Ars and am disappointed this time.

We're working on a more in-depth story that will be posted shortly, but we wanted to get the news out quickly.

I have a friend who's a trial attorney that handles corporate IP (although not generally in the tech industry). He's worked cases between even larger companies that came down to single lines in a contract of which the "real" cost is entirely negligible, yet the companies involved refused to budge for any reason. Millions upon millions of dollars in legal fees and years spent in court.

People are so quick to blame the lawyers, but especially in civil cases, lawyers often plead with clients to be reasonable. If the client feels like they have a bottomless war chest and want to fight to the death, though, ultimately it's the legal team's job do what they're told -- including litigating over minutiae that, from the outside, seems incredulously minor.

Unless I'm mistaken the judge could negate this finding by ruling that APIs are not copyrightable, which he has yet to decide upon.

siliconaddict wrote:

*shrugs* I'm an android fan, but frankly....if they did wrong. Bring the pain.

And if Google did wrong then anyone who has ever implemented an API without explicitly asking and receiving permission beforehand will feel the pain.

This case is not about any old API, or what some people choose to call an API. It is only about the 37 Java APIs.

That's a rather shortsighted statement. The rule of law is based on precedent. If a precedent is set that ANY API is copyrightable, then ALL APIs are copyrightable. Your statement equates to "Well, that judgement says knowingly putting rat poison in Jane Doe's coffee is murder, it doesn't apply to knowingly putting rat poison in her orange juice, or in someone else's coffee.".

If Oracle can copyright an API and SSO of APIs, then every API and SSO of APIs is ALREADY copyrighted. As soon as they're fixed in a medium (such as a documentation booklet or a computer programming library). That's how copyright works, as soon as it's done, it's copyrighted.

Just like this comment, it's actually copyrighted as soon as I press 'leave your reply' button and fix it in an HTML medium.

Except posting things on ars:

you irrevocably grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide right and license to copy, reproduce, modify, edit, crop, alter, revise, adapt, translate, enhance, reformat, remix, rearrange, resize, create derivative works of, move, remove, delete, erase, reverse-engineer, store, cache, aggregate, publish, post, display, distribute, broadcast, perform, transmit, rent, sell, share, sublicense, syndicate, or otherwise provide to others, use, or change all such Content and communications, in any medium (now in existence or hereinafter developed) and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so. Among other things, this means that we may use any ideas, suggestions, developments, and/or inventions that you post, upload, transmit, send or otherwise make available in any manner as we see fit without any compensation or attribution to you. In any event, you should make copies of or otherwise back-up any and all Content, personal data or communications you post, upload, transmit, send or otherwise make available on or through the Service that you may wish to retain.

So yes its your copyright, but means nothing because you just gave all your rights to Conde Nast

No, he gave them a license. A non-exclusive one, in fact. He retains the copyright.

If they have an irrevocable license, that gives them the ability to sub-license would that not be giving away all rights? Just saying - yes copyright would be yours/mine... but you still give away all your rights.. as its irrevocable license to do anything with...

That's a rather shortsighted statement. The rule of law is based on precedent. If a precedent is set that ANY API is copyrightable, then ALL APIs are copyrightable. Your statement equates to "Well, that judgement says knowingly putting rat poison in Jane Doe's coffee is murder, it doesn't apply to knowingly putting rat poison in her orange juice, or in someone else's coffee.".

If Oracle can copyright an API and SSO of APIs, then every API and SSO of APIs is ALREADY copyrighted. As soon as they're fixed in a medium (such as a documentation booklet or a computer programming library). That's how copyright works, as soon as it's done, it's copyrighted.

Nonsense. APIs are already copyrighted FOR SOURCE AND OBJECT CODE, APIs have also been found to have copyrightable SSOs (see Johnson Controls). The SSO of any API is going to have to be complex enough to be considered original expression. The copyrightability of the SSO for ANY API will be decided on a case by case basis (just like it is now), until it's thrown out altogether by the SC or some bright line test is devised and adopted by the courts.

How do you not grasp that the lack of bright lines is a very bad thing legally? It's like you're from another planet where risks of future litigation over legally murky issues with no clear guidelines don't shut-down funding for start-ups or kill projects before they're off the ground because legal didn't approve it. Chilling effects are a huge deal, you know they're a huge deal you just like their results. Even if not a single other case cites Oracle v. Google as a precedent you'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to assume it won't matter much in software development moving forward if Oracle should win.

Fyi, we have updated the story with much more detail. Thanks for reading.

The article is excellent, thank you. But I still believe the title is misleading, as commented in the other post. The jury did not find Google infinged copyright law, as the Judge did not rule on what is copyright law yet.

Pardon my asking, but I'm not a programmer. The article brings up "non-standard" implementations of Java. Is everyone free to write programs in regular old Java without violating these APIs, or does Joe-open-source-programmer now risk a lawsuit for copyright infringement if he uses the language?